Guest post by David Archibald
Figure 1: Ap Index 1932 – 2012
The Ap Index is the weakest of the solar activity indicators and has returned below the floor value of solar minima over the last 80 years – the green line in the chart above.
Figure 2: Solar Cycles 20 and 24 Ap Index and Neutron Count
The last time there was a cooling event in the modern instrument record was during Solar Cycle 20. Aligned on the month of minimum, Figure 2 shows that while the Ap Index and neutron count are co-incident to date in Solar Cycle 24, they were quite divergent over two thirds of Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 3: Neutron Counts over Solar Cycles 20 to 24
One big difference between Solar Cycle 20 and the other solar cycles of the modern instrument record is that just over half way through the cycle, the neutron count returned to levels of solar minima and remained there for the balance of the cycle. That is shown in Figure 3 above which also shows that the neutron count of Solar Cycle 24 is yet to depart from levels associated with previous minima, three years into the solar cycle.
Further to the post on Solar Cycle 24 length based on Altrock’s green corona diagram at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/, Altrock noted the slow progress of Solar Cycle 24 in mid-2011. From Altrock, R.C., 2010, “The Progress of Solar Cycle 24 at High Latitudes”:
“Cycle 24 began its migration at a rate 40% slower than the previous two solar cycles, thus indicating the possibility of a peculiar cycle. However, the onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission, which has been a precursor to solar maximum in recent cycles (cf. Altrock 2003), has just been identified in the northern hemisphere. Peculiarly, this “rush” is leisurely, at only 50% of the rate in the previous two cycles.”
Altrock’s green corona diagram is available here: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/6_altrock_rttp.pdf
If Solar Cycle 24 is progressing at 60% of the rate of the previous two cycles, which averaged ten years long, then it is likely to be 16.6 years long. Using that figure of 16.6 years would make Solar Cycle 24 seven years longer than Solar Cycle 22. Using a solar cycle length – temperature relationship for the US – Canadian border of 0.7°C per year of solar cycle length, a total temperature decline of 4.9°C is predicted over a period of about twenty years.
Has a fall of that magnitude happened in that time frame happened in the past? A good place to look is the Dye 3 temperature record from the Greenland Plateau, available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/dye3/dye3-1yr.txt
Figure 4: Dye 3 Temperature Record from Oxygen Isotope Ratios
There is plenty of noise in this record and rapid swings in temperature, for example the 5.2°C fall from 526 to 531 at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
Figure 5: Dye 3 Temperature Record 22 Year Smoothed
Averaging the Dye 3 temperature record using the 22 year length of the Hale Cycle produces a lot of detail. What is evident is that there has been a very disciplined temperature decline over the last four thousand years. The whole temperature record is bounded by two parallel lines with a downslope of 0.3°C per thousand years. The fact that no cooling event took the Dye 3 temperature below the lower bounding green line over nearly four thousand years is quite remarkable. It implies that solar events do not exceed a particular combination of frequency and amplitude. From that it can be derived that this particular combination of frequency and amplitude with be ongoing – that is that cooling events will happen just as frequently as they did during the Dye 3 record.
Figure 6: North – South Transect through the Grain Belt
The relationship between temperature and growing conditions at about the latitude of the US – Canadian border is that one degree C will shift growing conditions by about 140 km. With a total 4.9°C temperature decline in train, that means a shift of about 700 km. Figure 6 shows the result of that temperature decline. Witchita will end up with the climate of Sioux Falls, which in turn will be like Saskatoon now. The growing season loses a month at each end.
R. Gates:
For good or bad, plant life has not adapted well to lower co2 levels comparred to earths historic level. This is very evident from not only greenhouse experiments, and present day use, but also large scale field experiments.
Biota responds very positively to co2 level at approx 1000 to 1500 ppmv.
In fact, if we continue our warming trend, that higher co2 may be the saving grace as yields rise commensurate with higher co2 levels.
@Babsy: How do you explain the dust storms at Mars, where the air is a thousand times thinner than earth´s?….Electric fields
I don’t doubt that the trend shown in Figure 5 is present in the data shown in Figure 4, but the conclusions drawn from these figures [apparently an example of the likely effects of cooling in Greenland is displayed in Figure 6] do not necessarily follow.
In general conclusions based on extrapolations in time [“the past shows a trend, so the trend must continue”] and space [“it’s happening in one place, so it’s probably happening elsewhere”] without additional supporting data or attribution to the underlying physical cause are not robust.
adolfogiurfa says:
January 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm
It’s my understanding that Mars no longer has a magnetic field. Is this not so? My guess is it’s either George Bush’s fault or CO2! Maybe it was Spirit and Rover’s unfolding of their solar panels! I would suspect the dust storms on Mars arise from the unven heating of the surface by the sun.
Given that temperatures have been steadily increasing for about 11,000 years, it would take a lot to convince me that CO2 due to human activity has anything to do with warming.
1. Someone would need to make a convincing case that CO2 has any connection to this multi-century long term warming. Since human causes CO2 emissions only are significant since about 1940 there is not (past few centuries of significant CO2 emissions.
Until that is accomplished, the default assumption must be, that slow warming out of the last ice age is the norm for our climate over the last 10-11 centuries, and current warming is only more of the same.
2. I would stipulate that some long term warming is present, but I have yet to see how a trailing indicator can be the cause of the effect. If CO2 levels lag temperature increases by 800 years I find no legitimate reason to assume that CO2 is the cause of warming.
3. It is well documented in historical records that the climate oscillates around that long term upward trend in approximately 30 year increments (30 years above the trend, 30 years below the trend). There is no reason to believe the recent warming cycle is not part of that harmonic imposed on the long term trend. What would it take to convince me other wise?
a) A plausible mechanism that ties CO2 emissions to warming. Since there has been an unexplainable intermission in warming in spite of continuing increase in CO2 the current conditions strongly imply that not only is CO2 not the primary cause of warming, but that it has essentially no correlation to the short term warming. Especially when you compare the recent warming cycle against previous warming cycles before man caused CO2 was significant.
b) Without a demonstrated (testable) mechanism I would accept 120-240 years of proven warming in lock step with CO2 levels. So far that breaks down after about 30 years so the relationship is incidental/accidental not causal.
4. The prevailing evidence is that the earth has been far colder than today most of its history since ice ages began, so the logical assumption has to be that colder is the norm in this era, so cooling is far more likely in the future, than continuous unabated warming as postulated by the AGW proponents.
5. The AGW proponents would also have to convince me that their assertions about global average temperature have any meaning. Specifically:
a. That the concept of Global Average temperature has any rational physical meaning.
(as opposed to my view that it is a fabricated metric that is not only useless but misleading)
b. That they can in fact measure that Global Average temperature to the precision/accuracy that they assert.
(I believe they are in fact measuring noise and that the precision, accuracy and biases in their data totally swamp the changes that they assert they are seeing.)
c. They would also have to convince me that they understand the uncertainties in their data. I am convinced that they are engaged in felony level wishful thinking, and either through ignorance, bias confirmation, or malicious intent, cooking the numbers to suit their expectations.
6. They would also have to change my mind that they are not engaged in an intentional effort to misrepresent the facts in favor of their theory/model projections and routinely make one sided adjustments to the data the majority of which only favor their agenda.
Give me any 5 of those 6 items and I would consider changing my view, until then I will be inclined to give more weight to my personal experience and the -30 deg F winters I remember from my childhood during the “cooling period” that the AGW groups swear did not exist.
As a child I remember radio announcements in the 1960’s that several lakes in the Denver Metro area were frozen thick enough to drive on and ice fishing was allowed, and on our way to my grandmothers house driving by one of those lakes and seeing 5-6 cars and about 30 people out ice fishing on the lake.
It has not been frozen that thick in about 40 years. I also remember it being cold enough that my eyes froze shut when I blinked them too long when they were watering due to the intense cold and windchill, while on my paper route at near -30 deg F temperatures, and I had to cup my hands over my eyes to get my eye lids open.
I also remember spending a day trying to thaw a car enough to get it to turn over due to stiff oil in those temperatures in the 1970’s. We had to put a charcoal grill under the cars oil pan for several hours, to get it warm enough that we could get the starter to crank the engine. The oil was like cold honey.
Larry
R Gates most often used words :
if
maybe
perhaps
suppose
could
Bob
You asked for alternative sources of the graph Smokey posted upthread. In my article linked to below I cited numerous old temperature records
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
The one you are after is cited in link 50 but many of the others are well worth looking at. By clicking on my name you will go to my web site where I keep mostly pre1850 temperature records plus related articles.
tonyb
POES is showing strong potential for auroral activity over Russia into the Fritz 1 zone.
Live 3D Aurora viewer available from the Layman’s Sunspot Count Page.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/50
In this entire post what Ap index stands for is not defined. Goggle says it is ’30 day Geomagnetic Disturbance’ but that would be the GD index. Then there is the ‘three hour Kp index’ which is not defined either. What does it measure? Is that is Gauss or gophers, sun spots or snails?
If we readers do not know what you are measuring then the whole thing is as clear as Vuck, and half the time I don’t know what he is talking about either.
“”””” A physicist says:
January 22, 2012 at 4:10 am
Here on WUWT, Willis Eschenbach has quoted the following Freeman Dyson story:
………………………………..
The lesson-learned is that there have been innumerable theoretical predictions of impending >ice-ages and global warming< in the past. The only such predictions that have stood the test of time have been those that were based upon Fermi-quality theoretical models
All these arguments are interesting, and the science is interesting. But…..
In a way, they are all trivial.
Whatever the catastrophe, be it too hot or too cold, we will not be able to deal with it. We (these United States) are bankrupt. As Erskine Bowles said to Congress, the Federal Debt “…is a cancer that will destroy us…”
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Report-on-Debt-Challenges-Goes-Before-Congress/10737420029/
Pray for our country.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Steamboat Jack says:
January 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm
There is a solution to this dilemma: Create wealth. Reduce regulations, drill here and drill now.
@Babsy: About Mars:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zg70y10m
R. Gates says:
“Then it better start cooling very fast if your prediction is going to come true. 2010 and 2011 have already been warmer than any year in the 1990′s except 1998, and it looks like 2012-2015 at least will also be warmer. This will only give you 2016-2019 for cooling to the 1990′s level, and it would have to be very very severe and rapid to see the decade of the 2010′s not warmer than the 1990′s.”
Much like the 1900 and 1945 drops then: http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20C4Y.gif
the cooling has already started in sydney the daily temp is around 23 deg c in the middle of summer ?
R. Gates says @ur momisugly January 22, 2012 at 11:48 am
In order of decreasing significance:
1. Good Luck
2. The weather
3. Two dimensional representation of an indeterminate number of fork handles. (an art form aka. climate graphics).
(The latter is invariably a picture of four candles that shed more heat than light. I have one my wall initialed by the artist – PNS).
@Gates says:
The honest skeptic is willing to change their beliefs, and as such, is skeptical even about their own skepticism…i.e. they are always looking at the true basis of their skepticism, and making sure it hasn’t become a religion.
True, but the true sceptic is therefore also the “rugged individualist” who you instead compare via your own projection’s self knowledge to a cancer cell, but which in any case makes you no more than a mere member of the “dainty collectivist” tumor, something which you continue to prove by your obsession with the meaningless = unhinged from reality verbiage of mainstream Climate Science’s “CO2 = CAGW” Dogma.
The most important question for you personally, Gates, is whether you are able to “grow a pair” and thus become one who is “willing to change their beliefs”, instead of comfortably repeating over and over the holy verbiage of your “CO2 = CAGW” Religion. However, given the consistency and zeal of your dogmatic performance to date, I’m betting against it.
Dr. R. Gates – full marks for perseverence.
But now it’s time for you to have a nice cup of cocoa and toddle right off to bed.
You may well feel much better in the morning.
But if you don’t, then stay right in bed and keep very, very warm until you do.
Remember warm is good – cold is bad.
Just ask yourself why do so many plants, animals and humans live in the tropics, while so few live in the Artic regions?
When you understand that, then you will be well on the road to recovery.
R. Gates – please just remember that if the CO2 story proves to be correct after all, then several things are sure to follow:
(1) Heavier than air machines will be able to fly and carry people in comfort from country to country.
(2) Pigs as well will at last be able to fly quite easily, without outside assistance.
(3) Pig farming will continue as a commercial venture as before, but in future will be attended by cowboys in helicopters.
All of these things will be true, when the CO2 story finally is able to forecast the climate.
Then I may be tempted to take it all seriously.
Until then I’m a sceptic, a doubter, a denier that there is evidence to support this rather amusing fairy story.
JPeden says:
The most important question for you personally, Gates, is whether you are able to “grow a pair” and thus become one who is “willing to change their beliefs”, instead of comfortably repeating over and over the holy verbiage of your “CO2 = CAGW” Religion.
——
As though who actually read what I post here know– I am not one espousing C AGW, so it would be impossible for me to be part of the CO2=CAGW Religion.
Note: in a dust bowl, carry spare wiper blades for the windshields!
I drove from Dallas to Columbus via Nashville, TN & Cincinnati this weekend in sprinklings of rain. Dirt from the dust storms out west coating everything and reeking havoc on the windshield even 1000 miles from Dallas, TX. Kind of unusual.
R. Gates:
You say an honest sceptic is able to change his views based on new research. Why is it then, that your belief only changes based on warmist research, and not on what you would call “skeptic” research? A True Believer is only able to change his views based on research that supports and strengthens his view. I believe this is a much better fit for you.
And a question for you: how can a doubling of CO2 (+4W/m2 taking the IPCC view) be such a catastrophic influence against the enormous fussion reactor a short distance away from us (~1320W/m2)? Wouldn’t you agree that a forcing 0.3% of an existing natural forcing is very inconsequential? Even the daily solar fluctuations are up to 4 times the size of the proposed change due to doubled CO2. CO2 whilst it has a radiative effect, is irrelevant and completely over-shadowed to the size of natural forcings.
Gates wrote:
“Just because the sun or ocean cycles or volcanic activity play a role in temperature fluctuations, does not preclude that the rapid increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years, might not also play a role in temperature increases.”
===================
But you’re claiming it does, “might not also” is meaningless here if you can’t ever be bothered to show empirically that it might.
But also, this reply manufactured in the AGWScience Fiction department devoted to producing such junk scientific sounding arguments, still hasn’t come up with the obvious rebuttal to it – that if it made no difference in the great rapid cooling and warming cycles for 800,000 years then it is irrelevant now.
And moreover in which dramatic changes of 300ft sea rises in a few decades of warming, for example, it lagged behind by c800 years, what difference can a few ppm more of it be making now when the amounts of it through all these changes was irrelevant? As the changes came first then the effect of CO2 levels rising and falling seen following way behind shows it is irrelevant, what it “might be” adding to that is in the irrelevant shash.
cui bono says:
January 22, 2012 at 6:04 am
I think you’ve misunderstood the exchange, it’s the cooling in that period that is now being denied by John Finn – “Which cooling event was this, David? Solar Cycle 20 ran from 1964 to 1976. I’v e checked the Hadcrut record and there was no cooling during this period. In fact there is a small (insignificant) positive trend over that period. The same goes for GISS.”
I was pointing out that even his AGW crowd admitted to cooling in that period.
@David Archibald
> Figure 2 shows that while the Ap Index and neutron count
> are co-incident to date in Solar Cycle 24 …
But neutron GCR peaked in 2009 just before SC24 started and Ap is strongly (but not perfectly) correlated to solar activity (i.e. sunspot/radio flux activity). So how can be Ap be ‘co-incident’ with the solar cycle.
In fact GCR neutron activity is inversely proportional to the canonical solar activity. That’s because the solar wind tends to increase (again, not perfectly) with solar activity, which inhibits galactic cosmic rays (GCR). So, wind goes up, GCR goes down etc.
You can clearly see that trend in the Moscow Neutron Monitor archives. Just set the widget to plot monthly reading from 1960 to 2012. Then turn the plot upside down to see the solar cycle influence.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
@Louis Hoffstetter
> Do you believe neutrons from the sun influence the earth’s temperature?
Who said these neutrons were coming from the Sun? Yes, the Sun emits neutrons sporadically during flares etc, which are detectable (barely) on Earth. But the neutron plots that David is referring to (Oulu etc) are the continuous background neutron counts induced by galactic cosmic rays, not SCR!.
Right David?
😐